Shadco 

Gotta thank urbanknight for pointing me that general direction.

Will know by 10:10 tonight eastern time.

Figure I’ll go up to $175 but probably not higher, they are used but the rings look to be in good nick.

I believe it was only offered 1 year 2003 which is the same vintage as the rest of my group.

Obligatory pic of the patient.





.

Vintage Schwinn

TWENTY-SIX as your First Gear Cog (largest at the rear) is just really stupid for anyone over 40 years old that routinely rides in locations with large hills.

Sure, you may not ever need the (34 teeth rear 1st Gear cog) or a (32 teeth rear 1st Gear cog) instead of the biggie 34T rear cog, BUT IT IS THERE IF YOU WOULD EVER NEED IT!!!

Who gives a rats askk if the Rear Derailleur has to be a SUNTOUR or SHIMANO to get the job done? Italian carries a certain level of cool, for sure but Japanese gets it done flawlessly with none of the limitations of Campagnolo rear derailleurs. Campy is good enough in limited applications that it can adequately perform okay, but if you were to step up to first rate Japanese rear derailleur superiority, you will not be so limited in your choices of first gear teeth at the rear.
Yes, Campy is too cool but the Japanese made way better rear derailleurs to actually use!


One can easily calculate comparative GEAR Numbers (...gear inch numbers) to compile spreadsheet charts such as what nearly every manufacturer offered to USA consumers during the bike boom era of the 1970's. Yeah, this calculation is cave-man simple, but despite being so simple that Jethro Bodine could probably do it, it gives meaningful comparative, numbers assuming that the bicycles being compared are similar.

Front Sprocket teeth = NUMERATOR
Rear Sprocket teeth = DENOMINATOR

Front Sprocket DIVIDED BY Rear Sprocket = "result"

Multiply that "result" by THE DIAMETER OF THE BICYCLE WHEEL IN INCHES ..............***you WILL USE 27 if the bike is 700C(622mm) or 27"(630mm)***

example: you have a bicycle with 700C wheels with 45 tooth front sprocket and 15 teeth on rear sprocket.

45 DIVIDED BY 15 = "result"

45 DIVIDED BY 15 = 3

your "result" of 3 Multiplied by 27 ("since you WILL USE 27 if the bike has 700C wheels) = Gear number

3 X 27 = 81 GEAR



do said caveman simple calculation for each and every gear, and you can make a comparative gear chart such as what was long ago published in sales brochures and annual manufacturers' bike line-up catalogs.



The LOWER that the cave-man calculated GEAR NUMBER is, is generally indicative of superior HILL CLIMBING potential.
The HIGHER that the cave-man calculated GEAR NUMBER is, is generally indicative of possibly better TOP-END potential.
*****There are practical realistic LIMITS for mortal humans, where there would be diminishing returns once you REACH a certain low GEAR NUMBER or high GEAR NUMBER. Those practical realistic LIMITS could vary slightly from individual to individual, also depending slightly upon the bike in question also, but humans can only spin the pedals so fast, so heck yes, there are practical realistic LIMITS to how wide the practical useful overall Gear Range could be.
Humans aren't capable of turning the pedals that fast, like what would be possible with an old gasoline powered 3 horsepower Briggs & Stratton lawnmower engine turning the pedals.


Just for consideration and possible comparison, here for example is the OVERALL gear range of the 1971 Schwinn SPORTS TOURER ten speed*GEAR range 28 to 104*
******the 1971 year model Schwinn Sports Tourer featured 54/36 up front & 34-28-22-17-14 in the rear*****
Note that for the 1972 year model, the Sports Tourer HAD A DECREASED, less wide gear range, as the 36 small gear up front was discontinued after 1971, and the 1972 Sports Tourer received a larger, small front chainring with more than 36 teeth.

I am sure you can have some fun, comparing and calculating GEAR NUMBERS and comparing gear ranges among current and vintage bicycles that you are fond of.
Everything is math & science, isn't it? Some computations though are cave-man simple.

Take advantage of the nice sunny days and get outside and have fun riding your bicycle(s)!!!

Shadco 

FWIW I had a litespeed arenberg with ultegra/duraace 10 mixed, I really prefer the shifting with campy so as long as I can get the gearing I need for where I ride I will continue with campy.

.

Shadco 

Got beat.

rm -rf

46/30 would be perfect for a lot of riders, with 11-28 or 11-32 on the back. I think it's recently available on a few new bikes? That way, it's useful lower gearing without the big jumps between shifts that you get on the 11-34, 11-36 cassettes. (But 30F-36R sounds amazing!)

My main road bike is Shimano Di2, 50/34 and 11-32 in 11-speed. That's fine for all but the steepest longer hills.

My other "adventure/all day ride" bike is Athena 11 speed triple 30-39-52. It's smallest chainring is 30, due to the bolt spacing. I was running a 12-29 cassette, which was okay, almost 1:1 ratio of 30F 29R. Fine on reasonable grades. But I wanted lower on this bike, for gravel climbs and for carrying loads and for long steep climbing.
So now I have a Shimano hub and 11-34. The cog width spacing is the same on Campagnolo or Shimano with 11-speed so they shift correctly on both. (not with 10 speed, though). 30F-34R is great. I can easily stay seated on a 12% grade, and 15-18% grades are way better now.

And I really like the 39 chainring on this triple, it's good for faster flats pace and easy hills. Then the 30 takes over on the steeper ones. I rarely use the 52.

Polaris OBark

That is how mine was first set up, when I got it in 2014. I put in a 46/30T crankset because I was having trouble on our 20% grades, especially off-road.

I never noticed any big jumps in the gearing, to be honest. Now I probably will.

Mine's on a 1987 Bianchi, and I decided finally to downgrade it to modern 11-speed (I think it was 6 or 7 speed originally), so that I can use it on terrain I could easily ride on with stupidly high gearing back in 1987. It's all matching silver-colored drivetrain components, so I am a bit loathe to change it.

I'm exactly the same way. the primary benefit is that the derailleur braze-on is compatible with the triple crank and derailleur, but isn't with a sub-compact double (I tried that first). But it is also nice to have the big chainring when I want to pretend I can still go fast.

By the way, I've always really appreciated what you did with that star by your username (as a wild-card). However, would be marginally more entertaining.

Shadco 

FWIW I ended up going campy record 12 compact crank and ultra torque bb. Once I found the correct technical doc I could confirm proper fit with my bb shell for chainline, width etc.

Got a solid deal with my dotter’s pro plan discount thru back country. Will stay with the 13/26 cassette for starters and see how that goes. Will use a new connex chain since I just replaced the cassette.

PS: I don’t think the forum adds the /
..

BCRider

I raise you.... Taken during the build of the shop.

For the OP. I commend you for managing with a 53 plus anything for much of your life. I was never that good. All my road bikes either lived with mid cassette to big ring cross chaining or finally got a measure of mercy when I discovered 48T big rings on cyclocross cranksets. With those I can finally manage to live with the smaller third of the end of the cassette.